I googled Merriam-Webster SOCIALISM. You didn't read the whole thing. From further down the page.

"System of social organization in which private property and the distribution of income are subject to social control"

From Britanica

"Socialism, social and economic doctrine that calls for public rather than private ownership or control of property and natural resources. According to the socialist view, individuals do not live or work in isolation but live in cooperation with one another. Furthermore, everything that people produce is in some sense a social product, and everyone who contributes to the production of a good is entitled to a share in it. Society as a whole, therefore, should own or at least control property for the benefit of all its members. "

Medicare heavily controls the businesses (property) that treat the elderly, from prices, to who may receive what treatment, to whether a new treatment may be introduced, not to mention requiring loads of paperwork.

Technically, the socialist arrangement where property is controlled by the government as in Medicare and not owned by the government is called fascism (Mussolini style without all the racism. The Nazis called themselves National Socialists aftr all) Many governments today contain large elements of fascism in their makeup. But, fascism is now a dirty word, so everyone just uses the broader term socialism which is still correct.

In short, Rand Paul was correct to call Medicare socialist.

By the way, the Bank bailouts were socialist too. Subsidies to farmers and Oil companies, etc. I have heard them called socialism for the rich which is accurate enough. So despite the fact that Rand Paul is presumably (who ever really knows with a politician) as anti-socialist as they come since he is a ibertarian. The left should find some common ground with him beyond civil liberties. Politics makes strange bedfellows.

You are stretching the definition of 'socialism' to it's breaking point -- as you have it, every aspect on life on earth is 'socialist'.
"...individuals do not live or work in isolation but live in cooperation with one another..." -- um yes, that seems to be about right, with extremely rare exceptions.
One thing you can say for the Vienna School. They are loud and persistent, even when no one takes them seriously.

When the government obligates an individual to be taxed or threatens them with jail , obligates a medical provider to perform care on an individual as a requirement of their profession, and regulates medicine (i.e. prohibiting certain people from practicing, obligating procedures) I am pretty sure that means controlling distribution of goods and means of production.

When the government obligates an individual to be taxed or threatens them with jail , obligates a medical provider to perform care on an individual as a requirement of their profession, and regulates medicine (i.e. prohibiting certain people from practicing, obligating procedures) I am pretty sure that means controlling distribution of goods and means of production.

I think this article got Rand Paul correct. He is a libertarian who is triangulating his positions with those of the GOP to make himself more electable. Kudos, it is quite an accomplishment for a mainstream publication to think outside the Republican/Democrat box.

As to whether the left should like him or hate him. They should hate him. Rand Paul is a libertarian and if you know just one thing about libertarians its that they are not socialists. If Rand Paul had his way, he would give the left their civil liberties, and then proceed to tear the government down to its very roots with nary a hint of socialism left. No other major Republican would go so far given the chance. Heck, most Republican politicians don't even seem to have a clear understanding of what socialism is or more likely they just don't care. Just to be clear Republicans, farm subsidies are socialism.

It is wildly unlikely Rand Paul will accomplish all he would wish of course. But still, he should be the most hated politician of the left for what he represents. The destruction of socialism in America. The fact that they appear confused about what to think of him would just seem to indicate that not many of them pay attetion to libertarianism since they don't seem to recognize one when they here one.

Rand Paul is a politician, he tries to choose his words carefully, triangulate with the GOP, and limit his battles to those that he can win. I thought it would be interesting to compare the positions he is taking to those of most libertarians.

limits on executive discretion to kill americans = correct in itself but just a small piece.

comprehensive immigration reform = there doesn't seem to be a consistent libertarian position on this anyway.

reduced sentences for non-violent drug offenders = a step in the right direction, the libertarian position is legalization.

Medicare is socialism = about the worst thing a libertarian can say. Since I ocnsider him a libertarian, I take it to mean Rand Paul would destroy Medicare if he could. But, what do I know.

stopping foreign aid to a few key allies = again a step in the right direction. Libertarians would end all foreign aid.

civil liberty reforms to the patriot act = again a step in the right direction. Libertarians would repeal it altogether.

So in conclusion, Rand Paul is not taking hard libertarian positions on issues like his father Ron Paul did, but in each case the direction he is pushing is toward the libertarian position. I take this as his attempt to triangulate with the GOP and be more electable. If his recent success and popularity continues, it will be interesting to see if he pushes harder.

Rand Paul has taken advice from a political science statistician. He tried to broaden his base, but he compromised his values, offended the Republican Party, and lost all hope of winning a national election. Nice try, Rand, but no cigar.

Bruni would be a better thinker if he didn't live or work in NYC itself. It's like Utah-- an intellectual island unto itself in which it's difficult to tell whether politics skews current ideas more or less as a result of one party's overwhelming hegemony.

Of one thing I'm sure-- Bruni has no real clue why Democrats win or lose. If 2012 had turned out to be an extension of 2010, as it probably would have if the Republicans had run better candidates rather than continuing to flail about in the existential, redefinitional crisis they're undergoing, he'd be mystified. Which would probably be better in that way, at least, because as it is he's sunk back into his own NYC-inspired certainties of belief, in the vein somewhat of "The Republicans tried to dupe the people, but the innate goodness of the American people prevailed."

Mr. Frank Bruni is merely doing what everyone at the NYT does. He's blasting anyone and everyone who looks like he or she may be a GOP presidential hopeful. It happens every day. Nothing unusual about it.

I would say Mr. Bruni is one minor "albatross" around America's neck. There are many more that weigh heavier than Mr. Bruni.

Here's to Mr. Bruni:

Day after day, day after day,
We stuck, nor breath nor motion;
As idle as a painted ship
Upon a painted ocean.

The most striking features of a debate about garbage, is that no one can discern the facts from the fiction of political spin - there is a credibility gap for both parties, whose paucity in leadership and principle leaves open the way to opportunitsts to be elected President by super PACS who bankroll politicians on both sides at the end of Obama's second term.
Despite their studied sincerity, Hillary Clinton appears as much of a wack-job as Ron Paul to an outside world that is nauseated by the absurdity, spite and pettyness of politicians who refuse to work together and build consensus despite incontrovertible evidence that only nuance and propoganda separate their policies, not principles.
Mud-slinging and demonisation of opponents has become emblematic of how the American dream has transmogrified into a 'blame game' nightmare - both parties are so intent on tripping each other up and proving one another wrong, that they lost their way years ago.
This stale mate appears destined to continue indefinitely in sham democracy, which beggars the question: who profits by it?

Rand Paul is the modern day Reagan, whether he can be as successful as that, is another matter. Obama has offered no hope and no change. Paul was exactly right when he denounced the GOP as ‘stale and moss covered’ it does not stand for anything, other than shameless vote grabbing, with no principles. Government is way too big, over regulates and pries into peoples lives more than ever, enough is enough. Rand Paul 2016; the revolution is coming.

I'm far too middle-aged and cynical to believe the US governmental juggernaut can be stopped, or that a machine like the Republican Party can recreate small government and lost liberty. But I need something to believe in and like the sound of what you just said, so right on!

People tend to state that the country is now too fundamentally divided between the bitter politics that has been going on. Reagan won 2 landslide victories because he spelt it out to people in plain English just what was bugging everyone, but never realised; ‘It’s the government stupid’~Anon.
Whether you are in the Tea party, poor, rich, occupy wall street people, devout Republican or Democrat everyone is reading from the same book, just on different pages; If Rand can communicate that social security is the biggest tax Ponzi scheme on the books, and the other ridiculous sums of money that the American people have been paying as taxes is all just an illusion, as well as the great communicator Reagan did, then there is hope. Time will tell.

Yeah a pseudo libertarian he is. Banning abortion at the Federal Level even though he is a doctor who took enough physiology to know person hood at conception is an infantile position means he believes in absolute liberty for every MAN while women are subjected to a more oppressive and intrusive state. WW I know you want to believe he is your libertarian savior just like you wanted to believe the Tea Party wasn't some re-branded facade for the religious right but sadly you are setting yourself up for more disappointment.

"This has put Mr Paul nevertheless well to the left of mainstream Democrats on a number of issues, but also to the right of mainstream Republicans on others. Apparently this has left Mr Bruni, and no doubt many other unreflective liberals, somewhat confused."

Hopefully Rand will educate the public in the coming years to just how stupid and simple-minded right vs. left politics are in this country, and shine the light on the third path of moderate libertarianism.

Rand Paul is occupying one of the vacuums of a collapsing GOP, and nothing more.
.
Let's not forget that as a senatorial candidate, Rand questioned the legitimacy of the 14th amendment, and the right of the federal gov't to integrate lunch counters.
.
The longer Paul remains a force within the GOP, the longer the party will remain a regional party of primarily poor, under-educated states.

He appears to be well on his way to building a track record, to the point where according to standard political science theory he will probably peak too early for the 2016 presidential election (standard political theory appears to accept that political image is always based on lies and the sweet spot in a campaign is hit just before the voters discover all the lies).

But thank you for pinpointing the reason I've never been able to form a good opinion of Mr. Rubio. "Smarmy" is exactly it. He's supposed to be the next chosen one, according to what remains of the party establishment. He delivers a credible recitation of the cheering points of several established party factions. What he does not do is convey any sense of moral character or even heartfelt beliefs, other than a firm belief in his desire to advance his political career.

I, like perhaps a lot of Americans, having been told for the past several years that Rand Paul was a complete nut job, a Libertarian who was against government in any form on any level (if any proof was wanted, merely look at his name), was very surprised to find that he sounded eminently reasonable when I actually had the chance to speak at some length in his own words. I feel somewhat chagrined that I allowed my opinion of the man to be defined by people who must be his political opponents in government and the media, because the reality was nowhere near the caricature they had successfully drawn of him.

Clearly the Republican party is casting about for anyone resembling a leader that they can all/mostly agree on. That might be a futile effort because the party is split three ways; between the old-line establishment who thinks they still know who is "electable", the religious conservatives that are the shrinking remnant of the old Moral Majority, and the secular fiscal conservatives formerly known at the Tea Party. They will never be able to agree on a single leader because they are too passionate about their incompatible beliefs. At best, a Teddy Roosevelt may arise who is so charismatic and so in touch with public sentiment that he or she can split off a large portion of the Republican establishment (as Roosevelt did with the "Silver" and "Bull Moose" Republicans), with the remainder of the party then being compelled to follow.

Rand Paul's greatest accomplishment, perhaps inadvertently, has been to make a lot of ordinary citizens question the standard caricature of Republicans as being a bunch of dangerous extremists, conspiracy theorists, big business toadies, and anti-government nuts. He may not do a thing for unifying the party, but he's done a lot of good in terms of improving the party's image with non-partisans. I hope he will keep speaking out and will keep getting thorough coverage in the press. At the moment, he sounds like the closest thing to a voice of reason and compromise that we have in DC, and that's something I never would have said a month ago.